Nikon uses their own sensors as well as Sony sensors. however, Glass is far more important than bodies, and the photographer is far more important than either.I would not worry about a tiny difference in sensors.

I agree, but would have started with "camera in hand beats the camera left at home" I have some nice shots taken with an Iphone.... my real camera would have done a better job, but was nowhere near me.

18-200mm is equivalent to 29-320mm on FF, and both Nikon and Canon offer 28-300mm full frame lenses. My 28-300L does very well as a 'one lens solution'.

Neuro, problem is that the 28-300 is $3k. The 18-200 and 270 can be had for $500-$600. Big difference for a dad wanting to take decent pictures on vacation. Also, I don't think I'd want to carry the L-series glass around my neck all day at Disney World. I think on technicallity Roger is incorrect, but on intent he is spot on.

Have used a 28-300 on a 5DII. Have used an 18-200 on a 60D. Have used the 28-300 on a 60D. The 28-300 is a nice lens on both bodies.... the 18-200 is... well... lets just say if it broke I would not purchase another. It has the worst lens creep that I have ever seen in a lens and it is the least sharp of any canon or sigma lens that I have ever used. Yes, it is a 1 lens solution, but it is not a good 1 lens solution.

Ever used the 70-300 DO lens? Tracked a bird that flew overhead, the barrel retracted so hard I swear the eyecup almost gave me a black eye...

Early adopters of new tech like DO have to endure some hardship ... if you wouldn't be such a Canon fanboy, you probably would/could/should have sued Canon for a couple of Million $$$ :->

That is what I like about the 100-400; you can lock it in place...Hmmmmm... Gives me an idea! Why don't I track a bird overhead with the locking ring loose. Then I can sue them saying it was not mentioned on the barrel that I should lock it before tracking a bird overhead...Neuro, Marsu, I'll give both of you 3% of the profits of this scam venture for being the inspiration.

While I personally don't mind carrying the 28-300L around for a day at an amusement park (and have done so, in fact), that's a Canon-centric viewpoint (not misplaced here, just saying) and Roger doesn't seem to have that mindset.

While the IQ is not as good as the Canon L-series lens, Nikon's 28-300mm FX-format lens is cheaper than both Canon's and Nikon's 17-55mm f/2.8 IS/VC offerings, and it's about the same weight and (retracted) size as those 17-55/2.8 lenses. True, it's about $400 more than the APS-C superzooms, but a FF camera is more costly, so that's not unreasonable at all, IMO, and doesn't make the 'one lens solution' club very exclusive for (Nikon) FF shooters.

Admittedly I don't know much about Nikon, so good to know someone out there has a reasonably priced superzoon for FF. Since you mention that you actually carried the 28-300L at an amusement park all day, what are your impressions of the lens (from a father's viewpoint)? I'm curious because I'd use it for pretty much the same thing. I'm guess it doesn't do so well indoors, but that's not what it's made for.

Admittedly I don't know much about Nikon, so good to know someone out there has a reasonably priced superzoon for FF. Since you mention that you actually carried the 28-300L at an amusement park all day, what are your impressions of the lens (from a father's viewpoint)? I'm curious because I'd use it for pretty much the same thing. I'm guess it doesn't do so well indoors, but that's not what it's made for.

Quite useable, IMO. Definitely need a Blackrapid strap or equivalent to carry it, though. Across the range, the IQ is basically equivalent to the 24-105L - not stellar, but very good and fit for purpose.

Depending on the body, it can do ok indoors, but really only on the wide end and you have to push up the ISO. The first shot below, from a trip at the beginning of this past summer, is with the 28-300L on the 5DII (35mm, 1/80 s, f/3.5, ISO 6400). The second, taken on another trip later this past summer, is with the 35L on the 1D X (1/160 s, f/2.5, ISO 6400).

Actually, I didn't plan on this being a formal comparison, but given that it was the same location, same focal length, same approximate framing, and same subjects (although from a different camera angle and separated by about 3 months in time), it actually makes a pretty good real-world comparison between the two setups (5DII+28-300L vs. 1D X+35L). The composite below are 100% crops from the two images (1D X+35L on the right). I think there's a clear winner...

Wow, the quality of the 1Dx, and the IQ of a prime, really improves the image. Both great compositions, although I personally like the first one the best, but even before the 100% crop you can tell the detail just isn't there with the high ISO on the 5DII.

Admittedly I don't know much about Nikon, so good to know someone out there has a reasonably priced superzoon for FF. Since you mention that you actually carried the 28-300L at an amusement park all day, what are your impressions of the lens (from a father's viewpoint)? I'm curious because I'd use it for pretty much the same thing. I'm guess it doesn't do so well indoors, but that's not what it's made for.

Quite useable, IMO. Definitely need a Blackrapid strap or equivalent to carry it, though. Across the range, the IQ is basically equivalent to the 24-105L - not stellar, but very good and fit for purpose.

Depending on the body, it can do ok indoors, but really only on the wide end and you have to push up the ISO. The first shot below, from a trip at the beginning of this past summer, is with the 28-300L on the 5DII (35mm, 1/80 s, f/3.5, ISO 6400). The second, taken on another trip later this past summer, is with the 35L on the 1D X (1/160 s, f/2.5, ISO 6400).

Actually, I didn't plan on this being a formal comparison, but given that it was the same location, same focal length, same approximate framing, and same subjects (although from a different camera angle and separated by about 3 months in time), it actually makes a pretty good real-world comparison between the two setups (5DII+28-300L vs. 1D X+35L). The composite below are 100% crops from the two images (1D X+35L on the right). I think there's a clear winner...

what was the purpose to show this two different photo sessions?

Logged

jukka

Wow, the quality of the 1Dx, and the IQ of a prime, really improves the image. Both great compositions, although I personally like the first one the best, but even before the 100% crop you can tell the detail just isn't there with the high ISO on the 5DII.

wowhow can you draw such conclusions? two different photo sessions , different high lights reproduction,noise reduction, smearing , angels etcI'm impressed